Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
SITE-RELATED Questions and comments
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Is there a thread supply shortage? There's a whole category so we don't need to ration them I hope.
Oh I see, I was a bit too brief with my words. I said "I suggest a new discussion in the NewBuddhist.com category for site-related questions" but what I meant was more like "I suggest creating a new discussion in the NewBuddhist.com category whenever you have site-related questions"
I'm just following your suggestion....?
Cross-posts!
I figured it out!
LOL!! I got to must learn brief....! (Or EoW as my English teacher used to say. Economy of Words!)
@Linc: The search system is down. It can't find anything....
I used a relatively common word to the site....
Any word on the search function yet @Linc ? I just tried and get the same thing, no result no matter what I search.
Back now!
While in the midst of our big annual Icrontic event, the server misbehaved so I rebooted it. Search, unfortunately, needs to be manually turned back on when I do that... and it's possible I had to go look up the instructions on how to do that again.
Just like a kid left to its own devices....
No. Surely not.
General FYI:
As far as I am aware, Linc is not awfully happily disposed to entertaining name-changes of members on the forum, unless there is an urgent, pressing or naturally obvious reason for doing so (such as for this member...)
HENCEFORTH, any requests for name-changes will have to be supported by a good and valid reason.
Name changes in the past have led to some confusion, among members and Mods alike.
Many thanks, all.
... and, as always, thanks to all who make it all happen!
Thread rationing is back in effect!
Yo, @Linc, just noticed that there's no button for adding links in comments on the mobile version (at least for android). There's bold, italics, quote-spolier, emojis, add file, and add image. No link one like on the full site.
I’m getting ‘website not secure’ in bold red letters?
ETA:
From what my research finds....it’s a recent google/chrome flag.
I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the creators and maintainers of this site. Its like a well engineered car: smooth riding, beautifully handling, quickly responsive, and elegant. Furthermore, from what i see, it has performed for a long time.
As with many well crafted things, most of the problems arise from the user, which is true in my case. I can't figure out how to remove a part of a text from another post and incorporate that part in my text. Also, i am unable to highlight another users name and incorporate it in my text. Sorry, the technology in all its wonder has eclipsed me. Thank you for any help
Please @Linc delete my account
Even facebook lets you delete an account without a trace. Why not here?
The website is NOT secure. @Linc is there any chance of adding SSL to the site? Myself and others occasionally post sensitive information to the site, and it would nice not to have to worry about it being intercepted.
P.S. If you need a signed certificate, you can get one here: https://letsencrypt.org/
I am curious if people here over the years have deliberately got themselves banned as there was no other way to officially close their account.
@federica please dont just delete my comments and questions as they are genuine and fair questions and deserve a response.
I intend to keep posting here everyday until my profile is deleted.
Morally I disagree with the policy of not deleting accounts upon request.
Wish granted.
Which doesn't solve his problem cited in PMs including @Linc.
Or maybe, it does.....
"You can check out, but you can never leave."
@nakazcid I assure you it is my intention to fully put this site (and others I own) under SSL as soon as that is feasible. Unfortunately it's much more complicated than you probably believe. One of the drawbacks to operating websites for 15+ years is things get more complicated and twisted over time. I'm well-acquainted with Let's Encrypt, but its automation is not safe for our environment. I'm currently in the long, painful process of rebuilding our stack in a new hosting environment to solve that and other issues.
It's unfortunate the member above decided to go off the proverbial deepend about having their account deleted. For the record, I have a fairly nuanced position about it:
I do believe users should be able to expunge personally identifiable information from the site. However, this is extremely complex for a forum. It's pretty cut-and-dry for the basics: IP address records & email. That is "personally identifiable information" and we should automate its deletion. Our software doesn't allow for that yet, but I think it's something we'll be working on soon. In the meantime, I'd be happy to expunge it manually for users as requested.
Now lets' talk about the rest: Avatar, Username, and Post content. This is a public publishing platform, where you are contributing content. You are putting information into the public sphere, and multitudes of other users are interacting with you in good faith that their contributions will be meaningful into the future. A full-nuclear account removal renders these other contributions meaningless. What's more, your content is physically included in their content by way of quotes. Must I then censor their content as well? My take on this is a very firm: No.
But even if we agree that public information needn't be retracted, what about specific personal information that could endanger a person's well-being or anonymity in the future? Maybe once a couple years ago you got a little too specific about where you lived, or your daily routine, or your family. Situations change, and we shouldn't penalize folks for being open with their lives.
My preferred solution here is a "Request Deletion" feature that lets you submit a list of requests deletions or edits for manual audit. I think this would be a valuable feature addition. It's also a ton of work, so I don't know if or when that will be added. In the meantime, I'd certainly accept such a (conservative) list of links with rationale for manual removal. We have done this in the past for users.
Lastly, we get to "closing an account". Understand that "closing" an account (given the above constraints) is absolutely no different than simply never signing in again. A sufficiently complex password is not going to get brute forced in the span of a human lifetime given our current hashing standards and known technology. If I remove your access forcefully by banning you, you can no longer prove your identify to make FURTHER DELETION REQUESTS in the future. So you're not really doing anything except undercutting your own privacy by forcing us to ban you.
I'm certainly open to more discussion about this, let's just please approach this from the assumption that I'm sincerely trying to adequately balance individual privacy & safety with the broader community's needs. And that if I'm delayed in replying or acting on a request, it's not a de facto broad denial but rather the fact that this website is not my job (or even a source of income) and I'll get to it when I get to it.
I absolutely do not equate the service we provide here to a Facebook-style closed system where everyone gets infinite "privacy" controls while having all their personal data sucked away forever. We collect very little, we share private info with no one, and we operate wholly on the open, public Internet for the collective good.
I think maybe you just want to click "Quote" and then delete the quoted text down to the snippet you wish to discuss.
Thank you Linc. Is that true of names well?
No it most certainly does not.
All your data is shared and stored in real time by paying 'partners' for any purpose they choose.
@Linc describes the farcebook data aquisition disservice rather well here:
Thanks to @Linc and Team Newbuddhist. Good people.
????♂️???♀️???
I'm unsure what you mean. Names are optional in quoted text and can be edited, removed, or added at will.
To "mention" someone, just typing an
@in front of their username does that automatically.Simple huh, once you know it. Thanks again.
Farewell @Socair ....And may the Dharma shield be/stay with you in wholesome and unwholesome times...Metta
I don't always understand him; but I always love @Linc.
(In the meantime, I'll keep smashing the hell out of spam-bots. I'm quite good at that. "Declined". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHH!! )
Ok, I'm done.
Wow, remind me never to upset the moderators
I do not understand the reasons for not deleting an account if someone requests for it.
I do know that @Socair asked for it several times.
I still think people should be able to have some control over the personal information they choose to share, especially in a forum like New Buddhist which feels more homey and like a family.
We are not talking here of mammoth corporations which consider us plain figures to their profit margin.
Thank you for the beautiful greeting to Socair, @Shoshin
He has been a dear member in our tiny community and deserves much respect on the part of our members.
I am sorry to see that @Shoshin could be the only one to have some kind words towards him.
A real shame for a Buddhist site.
Read @Linc's post again, @DhammaDragon; he does explain things quite thoroughly, answering the points you have made....
I am not good with technicalities, but I will make an effort, Fede.
Thank you.
Other than that, do you have any kind comment to make about Socair's departure?
He has been a very nice person and we have all shared some nice private chats together.
Maybe he would appreciate reading some nice words from you.
Note: I would like to add that I have been on this site on and off since 2012.
I have seen many beautiful people pass through our site.
For different reasons, some of them have left of their own accord, and others have been banned.
Some of them have been trolls, but some have not.
We can still address them with respect.
I always thought @Socair’s posts were to the point and compassionate, and so I wish him well... metta and luck on his travels.
My post was more philosophical than technical. I don't think it's reasonable to read it and then say "I don't understand why accounts can't be wholly deleted" without addressing any of the specifics I raised.
If someone has a screaming fit or conflict in my living room such that I need to forcibly eject them from my house, you'll find my future comments about them to be respectfully succinct, and that's about it. Nor do I think it appropriate for the rest of the group to then reward them with public praise.
I don't understand what you're driving at here. The moderators weren't "upset" with the user; the user purposefully undertook the abuse of our platform and were banned. I'm quite sure Jason wasn't in the least bit upset by it. I'm not upset either, I just wanted to take the time to elucidate my thinking on the matter since I think it's both an important topic and to engage with other folks about it to see if there's information or perspective I'm missing. I spend a lot of time considering issues like this; it's part of my job.
I wasn’t referring to your post actually. I was just taken aback at some of the reactions. Most moderators I’ve seen on other forums I’ve been part of don’t usually react so freely to situations like this. Still, I’m new here and still learning.
Ohhh, understood. Yes, we have a small group of moderators and they have broad authority and the experience to match. I occasionally take it for granted despite my best intentions.
Tee hee. You will be fine.
We have outstanding moderators.
They are tough and expect civility and kindness to all our members. They expect us to follow good conduct. Aunty Fed (@federic) will write privately to individuals whose integrity/motivation is suspect.
One of my favourite posters was an eleven/twelve year old child. Her questions were wonderful. She was banned/removed after her age became apparent to protect her from some of the adult issues we discuss ...
@Linc is a professional programmer of the commercial vanilla forum software we use.
@Jason is a Christian with deep knowledge of the Sutras.
@karasti is our latest moderator. One of my favourite posters for her down to earth approach.
Welcome to NewBuddhist. ?
This is not a neurotic guest having a screaming fit in a living-room.
Nor a troll or a bot that calls for smashing.
Pretty crude and uncompassionate choice of imagery, by the way, unless my English fails me and the metaphor does not apply to this case.
This was a member questioning a guideline he does not find legitimate.
It called for -oh yes- an umpteenth explanation about this guideline.
I understand his reiteration and insistance could be annoying, but it is sad to see a member -a dear and respected member, not a troll- be parted with in such a cold way.
I was not calling for praise towards his attitude, but for some respectful addressing towards the person he has always been.
Never mind.
My mistake.
My explanation done, please feel free to proceed without my input.
As someone who's witnessed previously very nice people do this both virtually and in reality many times, I disagree. Anyone can be sufficiently irritated that they lose it.
I frequently employ the "forum-as-living room" metaphor and stand by it.
They were questioning it in private. Before I could respond, they took to the public side and dared the moderators to ban them. I don't care how nice a person someone is, if you do that, that's it.
Bullshit.
You baited a moderator BY NAME with the following words above: "Maybe he would appreciate reading some nice words from you."
Oh I think not, there will be no successful martyring after that performance.
When a member is banned, it is a classic troll technique to attempt to rally the community around the banned user in an attempt to gain sufficient social currency that they gain a measure of indirect control over the community. It feels good to rally around a generally-liked member banned for aberrant behavior, so this is an easy first step in drawing folks to your side. On this site in particular, this usually comes in the guise of "being more Buddhist" than the moderators thru actions that on the surface are kind to an individual, but collectively a grave disservice to the community.
What this leads to is chastised moderators and an opening for cultural corruption. On sites lacking strong leadership, moderators then react with panic that their user base may fracture as the conflict widens from misunderstanding, and so "superusers" become unchecked powers that may say and do whatever they want, inevitably creating a toxic culture.
If that sounds dramatic, I suppose it is. But it's also been my lived & witnessed experience on forums (including this one) many times over the years to varying degrees.
We generally enjoy your company, but we'll be having none of what you're serving in this thread.
I'm happy to engage further with privacy concerns in a new discussion, provided we're able to have a thoughtful dialog. I am closing this current thread to remove the temptation of further intemperate replies, with apologies to the new members that were participating here.
Just to clarify, I'd say I'm more of a perennialist than anything. I'm as much of a Buddhist as I am a Catholic or anything else I dabble in.
As a brief update, I connected with Socair over email via Federica. We identified the specific discussions that were causing concern and removed them. He has been unbanned.